[To Fr. George or Chief moderator: please ensure this does not get filed away into a sub forum]These 5 quotes, more so than any others, seem to be a serious challenge for Orthodox who only want to allow the Bishop of Rome a "primacy of honor":How would an Orthodox respond to these 5 men?

Chrysostom:

1) And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

2) John Cassian, Monk (c. 430)

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

3) Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

4) St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

5) St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

The Justinian one is sorta funny. Justinian put the pope under house arrest, had his soldiers rough the pope up in a Church, and embarrassed the pope when he wouldn't bend to Justinian's theological desires.

I have fantasized about getting a Church named after St Justinian and having an icon commissioned of him with Pope Vigilus kneeling down and handing over to St Justinian the condemnation of the Three Chapters.

[To Fr. George or Chief moderator: please ensure this does not get filed away into a sub forum]These 5 quotes seem to be a serious challenge for Orthodox who only want to allow the Bishop of Rome a "primacy of honor":How would an Orthodox respond to these 5 men?

Chrysostom:

1) And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

St. John Chrysostom received ordination from someone, St. Meletios Patriarch of Antioch, whom Rome had condemned as a schismatic and heretic. St. Jerome followed the pope of Rome, and was ordained by a man who episcopal lineage at Antioch quickly died out. The Vatican's four patriachs of Antioch claim their orders through St. Meletios, not the Rome backed usurper.http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14287.msg199615.html#msg199615Your quote, btw, speaks of St. Peter, not his successors at Rome.

I could swear we had a thread on St. Chrysostom's ordination in connection with this issue.

Quote

2) John Cassian, Monk (c. 430)

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

Yet it wasn't "Peter" but his disciple "Mark" in the form of Pope St. Cyril who told the Churches how they must believe in God.

Quote

3) Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Justinian convened the Fifth Ecumenical Council over Pope Vigilius' express objections, and when Vigilius refused to come, although dragged to Constantinople for the occasion, the Council convened without him. When he refused to ratify its definition, Justinian and the Council struck him from the diptychs.

Quote

4) St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

He didn't learn from the example of Pope Honorius?

Quote

5) St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

St. Maximus: wasn't the heresy he fought so hard against Monotheletism? Wasn't he vindicated at the Sixth Ecumenical Council? The same one who anathematized Pope Honorios of Rome?

Ah, yes, Fishereaters. They seem to be smoking something too. I also noticed that they don't tolerate quesitoning or responses to their claims very well.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 05:04:20 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

[an earlier post from Montalban]These are exalted titles but in using them Chrysostom does not mean that Peter possesses a primacy of jurisdiction in the Church or that he is the rock upon which the Church is built.

Again, we have already seen this in Augustine. He uses similar language in describing Peter but without its having a Roman Catholic meaning. We know this is also true for Chrysostom because he applies similar titles to the other apostles and did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be Peter. The term coryphaeus, for example, was a general title applied by Chrysostom to several of the apostles, not to Peter exclusively. It carries the idea of leadership but implies no jurisdiction. Chrysostom uses this term to describe Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul. He states that just as Peter received the charge of the world, so did the apostles Paul and John. Just as Peter was appointed teacher of the world, so was Paul. Just as Peter was a holder of the keys of heaven, so was the apostle John. He places the apostles on an equal footing relative to authority:

”He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart...Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer...’We are able to drink the chalice.’”

-Saint John Chrysostom “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2”

”And if any should say ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world...And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”

And he speaks of Saint Andrew -"For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”

Where is my Saint Ambrose?...no, he didn't write in support of Peter's primacy or a "papacy."

"He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank...."

(The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).

5) St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But eventually even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.)

From The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor

The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,

"To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome, one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong. (pp. 60-62)

[an earlier post from Montalban]These are exalted titles but in using them Chrysostom does not mean that Peter possesses a primacy of jurisdiction in the Church or that he is the rock upon which the Church is built.

Again, we have already seen this in Augustine. He uses similar language in describing Peter but without its having a Roman Catholic meaning. We know this is also true for Chrysostom because he applies similar titles to the other apostles and did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be Peter. The term coryphaeus, for example, was a general title applied by Chrysostom to several of the apostles, not to Peter exclusively. It carries the idea of leadership but implies no jurisdiction. Chrysostom uses this term to describe Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul. He states that just as Peter received the charge of the world, so did the apostles Paul and John. Just as Peter was appointed teacher of the world, so was Paul. Just as Peter was a holder of the keys of heaven, so was the apostle John. He places the apostles on an equal footing relative to authority:

”He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart...Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer...’We are able to drink the chalice.’”

-Saint John Chrysostom “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2”

”And if any should say ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world...And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”

And he speaks of Saint Andrew -"For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”

To add to Irish Hermit's post, one need only look to the liturgical text of the Vigil to the feast of Apostles Peter and Paul, and, indeed, of Apostle Andrew the First-called, to see clearly that titles suggesting supremacy such as coryphaeos (principal, of the highest order) are, in fact, commonly used for these, and other apostles. I do not have the text in English on hand for Apostle James, bit it would be no surprise at all to me if he is referred to in similar terms. What does all this mean? That there never was any supremacy of any one apostle over his fellow apostles.

I recall posting a large portion of the vigil for Sts Peter and Paul some time ago in one of the "Supremacy of Peter" threads.

Passages about the authority of Peter are not the same thing as passages about the authority of the Papacy. As has been repeatedly cataloged here, many Fathers saw the Petrine office as something invested in the entire college of bishops. And even if it is narrowed to those Sees which extend directly from St. Peter, Antioch and Alexandria were likewise 'Petrine Sees'.

More to the point, the issue of the Patristic view of Rome cannot be addressed by simply finding every example of a Father speaking highly of Rome. Far more relevant than what the Fathers said when Rome agreed with them (or when they hoped Rome would agree with them) is what they said and did when they *disagreed* with Rome. The words of St. Maximus, quoted by Fr. Ambrose, when the saint was being lied to about the position of Rome, are instructive.

I've asked many times and never gotten a positive example: Is there *any* example of anyone in the first 8 centuries, saint or heretic, who upon finding themselves in conflict with Rome, changed their position? The oldest example I've ever found is the synod of Whitby in 664, and even that example is not a good fit--because in that case a king (neither saint or heretic) who was undecided (rather than committed to the non-Roman position) was convinced purely by appeal to the authority of Rome.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

I don't think these 5 quotes are being examined closely enough. I would ask that we slow down and really try to analyze what these men were saying, and look at each one in depth.

And no Peter, this is not trolling this is cutting to the heart of the most important questions. This too should have remained in the Faith Forum so it gets maximum attention. If it is the policy of the moderators to demand the opposition grovel, then I will gladly leave this forum. My style is firm and decent. I am not here to make friends (though I have shared friendly exchanges with some here) but to inquire, sometimes aggresively to get beyond the superficial. This is how real discussion, inquiry and debate is. I make no appologies whatsoever. I have done nothing out of line. But this is silly, I will not argue about this with you or anyone else. I believe the visible Orthodox Church must be able to look at itself critically. I will continue posting as I have been.

Now to answer your question, I do recognize the Papacy as the ideal leader of the visible Church, but there is room for discussion on how that would actually manifest itself. The late JP2's Encyclical "Ut Unim Sint" at least brings this up. I find Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s opinion convincing and reflective of good policy for the visible Church.

Witega: I'd say the whole Arian and Iconoclast spat showed people re-aligning themselves with Rome. I think Rome influenced them to change course.

Ialmisry: You don't think Chrysostom's quote infers the idea that Peter's successors (which I think it should be admitted that the Bishops of Rome is the true successor of Peter in a way those from Antioch are not) have the same authority Peter did, to teach the whole world? I think that would be a stretch to say Chrysostom doesn't connect the bishop of Rome with Peter.

IrishHermit, that is an interesting quote in reply #5 from Ambrose. What does it continue on to say?

I would ask that we reread each of what these 5 men are saying carefully and reflect. This is a very important subject to consider.

But this is silly, I will not argue about this with you or anyone else.

Good, because moderatorial decisions are not up for discussion. You can challenge them in private messages, though.

You are a guest here, and while you are welcome to post things that challenge Orthodox beliefs, you will have to do that knowing that you are a guest in another man's home. That is how it would be for us were we to post on a Roman Catholic forum.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Passages about the authority of Peter are not the same thing as passages about the authority of the Papacy. As has been repeatedly cataloged here, many Fathers saw the Petrine office as something invested in the entire college of bishops. And even if it is narrowed to those Sees which extend directly from St. Peter, Antioch and Alexandria were likewise 'Petrine Sees'.

More to the point, the issue of the Patristic view of Rome cannot be addressed by simply finding every example of a Father speaking highly of Rome. Far more relevant than what the Fathers said when Rome agreed with them (or when they hoped Rome would agree with them) is what they said and did when they *disagreed* with Rome. The words of St. Maximus, quoted by Fr. Ambrose, when the saint was being lied to about the position of Rome, are instructive.

I've asked many times and never gotten a positive example: Is there *any* example of anyone in the first 8 centuries, saint or heretic, who upon finding themselves in conflict with Rome, changed their position? The oldest example I've ever found is the synod of Whitby in 664, and even that example is not a good fit--because in that case a king (neither saint or heretic) who was undecided (rather than committed to the non-Roman position) was convinced purely by appeal to the authority of Rome.

...and a bribe of some relics IIRC.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Yes it is. It's trolling. Take a step back and look at what you are doing. We don't have problems with people coming here and asking a lot of questions or expressing disagreement with our traditions or beliefs. You, however, have been rude. Your posts at times are downright insulting. You post things in the wrong fora, after being told repeatedly where to post particular kinds of topics. You whine when a moderator moves your threads to the proper forum where they were supposed to be in the first place. You call our art and churches ugly. You insinuate that our "Oriental mindset" can't handle "critical thought." Where I grew up that's called being rude.

Quote

If it is the policy of the moderators to demand the opposition grovel, then I will gladly leave this forum.

So you admit that you see yourself as "the opposition." It's too bad. Many people on this board disagree with each other, and they do so without being "the opposition." We don't want you to grovel. We just want you to be polite and somewhat respectful toward those with whom you disagree.

Witega: I'd say the whole Arian and Iconoclast spat showed people re-aligning themselves with Rome. I think Rome influenced them to change course.

Like who?

I'd say the whole Investiture controversy showed Rome was eager to hand power over to the secular authorities. And yet oddly, I can't seem to find any examples to demonstrate my assertion. I wonder why that is?

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

My style is firm and decent. I am not here to make friends (though I have shared friendly exchanges with some here) but to inquire, sometimes aggresively to get beyond the superficial.

sooooo, you are just starting with superficial quotes?

Quote

This is how real discussion, inquiry and debate is. I make no appologies whatsoever. I have done nothing out of line. But this is silly, I will not argue about this with you or anyone else. I believe the visible Orthodox Church must be able to look at itself critically. I will continue posting as I have been.

Brave words from the "invisible church," lest its claims be looked at by the Orthodox and found wanting.

Quote

Now to answer your question, I do recognize the Papacy as the ideal leader of the visible Church, but there is room for discussion on how that would actually manifest itself. The late JP2's Encyclical "Ut Unim Sint" at least brings this up. I find Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s opinion convincing and reflective of good policy for the visible Church.

Witega: I'd say the whole Arian and Iconoclast spat showed people re-aligning themselves with Rome. I think Rome influenced them to change course.

Really? After the elevation of Constantinople (former suffragan of Rome) in 381, Arianism disappeared in the East but thrived in the patriarchate of Rome as far as Spain. Until the Emperors in Constantinople came over and put an end to the Arian rulers in the west. Unfortunately, except for the Visigoths in Spain: they invented the Filioque as their entree into the Vatican's church.

And the iconoclast emperors transferred all of the Balkans to Constantinople: before then, Rome's jurisdiction reached to Thrace and included Greece itself. And the council of Frankfurt rejected the Seventh Ecumenical Council. And imposed the Filioque at Aachen a few years later.

Quote

Ialmisry: You don't think Chrysostom's quote infers the idea that Peter's successors (which I think it should be admitted that the Bishops of Rome is the true successor of Peter in a way those from Antioch are not)

You're right: his successor at Antioch is Orthodox, the one at Rome is not. As St. Symeon of Thessalonica said:

Quote

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself

have the same authority Peter did, to teach the whole world? I think that would be a stretch to say Chrysostom doesn't connect the bishop of Rome with Peter.

Then he should have the authority to say who was the rightful Patriarch of Antioch. St. John directly disobeyed Rome's choice (as did the Second Ecumenical Council). Contrast St. Jerome's whinny letter:

Quote

2. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Genesis 7:23 But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.

When Rome backed Paulinus, Jerome got ordained by him. That line of bishops soon thereafter died out.

Quote

IrishHermit, that is an interesting quote in reply #5 from Ambrose. What does it continue on to say?

Quote

"...This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies..."

I would ask that we reread each of what these 5 men are saying carefully and reflect. This is a very important subject to consider.

Then why don't you? Add a little context while you are at it.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 10:53:37 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Again, lots to digest in these 5 quotes. Maybe if we break them down it may make the process clearer:

St. Chrysostom:

Quote

And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

Ialmisry, you believe Chrysostom here does not link Peter with the Bishop of Rome. I disagree. I think Chrysostom and the Fathers granted that the Bishop of Rome is linked to Peter.

Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles. Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I see Chrysostom here inferring James' authority in Jerusalem to be under Peter's authority in the world. And since the Fathers admitted a unique connection between Peter and the Bishop of Rome, Chrysostom's quote would then apply to the current bishop of Rome.

Ialmisry, you believe Chrysostom here does not link Peter with the Bishop of Rome. I disagree. I think Chrysostom and the Fathers granted that the Bishop of Rome is linked to Peter.

Yes and no. It is not wise to lay too much emphasis on Peterv alone. The Bible teachers of the first centuries (aka Church Fathers :-) always speak of Rome as being founded on Peter and Paul. The writers of the West themselves consistently wrote in this way, up until the 8th/9th century. At that time Rome began to want to emphasis the importance of Peter and they began to downplay the name of Paul in their early history.

The first Bishop of Rome was Linus - ordained by Saint PAUL.

Later, the second Bishop of Rome, Claudius, was ordained by Saint Peter. This is recorded in the Apostolic Constitutions. Obviously the early Roman Christians had no worries that their first bishop and "Pope" came not from Peter but from Paul.

As far as we know Peter arrived in Rome only a couple of years before his martyrdom there. The Church of Rome was not in fact his foundation but it was the scene of his glorious martyrdom for the Lord..

Dear Kaste, this is from an earlier post. We know from the "Apostolic Constitutions" (below) that it was Saint Paul who consecrated Linus and appointed him as bishop of Rome. The apostolic succession in Rome commences not from Saint Peter but from Saint Paul.

What this tells us is that the early Christians were not fussed at all. They saw no great need to insist the Church of Rome was based on Peter. They had no problem with the fact that Saint Paul was the founder and that BOTH he and Saint Peter had a role to play.

QuoteXLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:—James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord [An incidental proof of the early origin of this compilation is furnished by the clear distinction it makes between James the son of Alphæus and James the brother of our Lord. The theory of Jerome, which identifies them, was later] upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus.Of Colossæ, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.Of the churches of Galatia, Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, “Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.”http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

Again, lots to digest in these 5 quotes. Maybe if we break them down it may make the process clearer:

St. Chrysostom:

Quote

And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

Ialmisry, you believe Chrysostom here does not link Peter with the Bishop of Rome. I disagree. I think Chrysostom and the Fathers granted that the Bishop of Rome is linked to Peter.

As is the Patriarch of Antioch. As for the Throne of Jerusalem, it is interesting that Eusebius, when he recounts the succession of bishops at the major sees, only refers to the cathedra at Jerusalem as "Throne." And St. Epiphanius recounts the Tradition that interprets the succession at Jerusalem to the Brother of God as the fulfillment on earth of the promise to David that one of his sons will forever sit on his throne.

By the way, how do YOU explain St. John Chrysostom receiving ordination from someone Rome had condemned as a schismatic and heretic (that is, before Rome put him on their calendar, following the lead of the path of the Church following Antioch's lead)?

Quote

Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles. Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I see Chrysostom here inferring James' authority in Jerusalem to be under Peter's authority in the world. And since the Fathers admitted a unique connection between Peter and the Bishop of Rome, Chrysostom's quote would then apply to the current bishop of Rome.

K

Evidently not unique, as Pope St. Gregory no less claims that Alexandria and Antioch are also Petrine sees. Actually he says "One Petrine See."

Acts 15 states plainly that St. Peter deferred to St. James ' authority.

Btw, if it applied to the current bishop of Rome, why is it that St. Peter's successor at Antioch, St. Ignatius, ordained by St. Peter himself to Antioch, harps on the episcopate in all his letters-all except that to Rome, where he doesn't mention the office-and doesn't mention the bishop of Rome once?

« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 11:58:51 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

And since the Fathers admitted a unique connection between Peter and the Bishop of Rome

Assuming a fact not in evidence.

As to the rest, I'll consider it when you respond to my original question with an actual answer--name one saint or heretic who, upon finding his position put him at odds with Rome, felt that was a reason to change his position?

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here. It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa. St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus. In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot. When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote

The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him. But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19]. When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus. Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria. So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church. But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].

But doesn't that also support Peter being at the top? Why would Christ mention Peter when He could have mentioned the covenant He made with all the apostles (which He did when He gave them the power to bind and loose)?

It seems Christ is saying Peter is in charge, and that the bishop gets his authority from being in communion with Peter...

But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].

But doesn't that also support Peter being at the top? Why would Christ mention Peter when He could have mentioned the covenant He made with all the apostles (which He did when He gave them the power to bind and loose)?

It seems Christ is saying Peter is in charge, and that the bishop gets his authority from being in communion with Peter...

K

I have no idea where you get that the bishop in question gets his authority from 'being in communion with Peter' since Christ doesn't mention communion. Christ simply says that that bishop in question carries the authority He conferred upon Peter.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].

But doesn't that also support Peter being at the top? Why would Christ mention Peter when He could have mentioned the covenant He made with all the apostles (which He did when He gave them the power to bind and loose)?

It seems Christ is saying Peter is in charge, and that the bishop gets his authority from being in communion with Peter...

K

That would agree with the prevalent view of the ECF that Peter stands for the episcopacy. Rather a problem for your Peter=Vatican analogy, as is the fact that the bishop in the story is far, far away from Rome. But he was in communion with the St. Peter in Alexandria, the first and original Pope.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ialmisry, you believe Chrysostom here does not link Peter with the Bishop of Rome. I disagree. I think Chrysostom and the Fathers granted that the Bishop of Rome is linked to Peter.

Yes and no. It is not wise to lay too much emphasis on Peterv alone. The Bible teachers of the first centuries (aka Church Fathers :-) always speak of Rome as being founded on Peter and Paul. The writers of the West themselves consistently wrote in this way, up until the 8th/9th century. At that time Rome began to want to emphasis the importance of Peter and they began to downplay the name of Paul in their early history.

And how!Former Franciscan monk, Hierodeacon Paul Ballaster-Convolier discovered the following in his work classifying old articles in the library of the monastery he belonged to in Spain

Quote

I happened to come across an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.

It was about a horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the western Church of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic. In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.

Ialmisry, you believe Chrysostom here does not link Peter with the Bishop of Rome. I disagree. I think Chrysostom and the Fathers granted that the Bishop of Rome is linked to Peter.

Yes and no. It is not wise to lay too much emphasis on Peterv alone. The Bible teachers of the first centuries (aka Church Fathers :-) always speak of Rome as being founded on Peter and Paul. The writers of the West themselves consistently wrote in this way, up until the 8th/9th century. At that time Rome began to want to emphasis the importance of Peter and they began to downplay the name of Paul in their early history.

And how!Former Franciscan monk, Hierodeacon Paul Ballaster-Convolier discovered the following in his work classifying old articles in the library of the monastery he belonged to in Spain

Quote

I happened to come across an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.

It was about a horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the western Church of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic. In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

And how!Former Franciscan monk, Hierodeacon Paul Ballaster-Convolier discovered the following in his work classifying old articles in the library of the monastery he belonged to in Spain

Quote

I happened to come across an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.

It was about a horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the western Church of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic. In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant."

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant."

No, He specifically said that none had authority over the other.

Anyone who says otherwise should take up their argument with Christ.

Yes, notice how the apostles are arguing about the greatest after the "You are Peter" speech, and He doesn't correct them by saying "Peter's in charge."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth